Friday, May 29, 2009

This time, Pierre "Little PeePee" Poilievre uses the derogatory term "tar baby". This is such a well-known racist terminology, that he can't deny what he was saying (check Oxford's Dictionary, if in doubt). Of course, "lie" is right in the middle of his last name... so perhaps he'll do the typical Harper Reform-a-Tory thing and "lie, conceal, and fabricate"...

It ain't pretty when the true Conservative colors show through.

Now, you know the typical conservative response will be to drag out one off-the-cuff, and not NEARLY as derogatory term used by a Liberal in the distant past to justify all their (Conservatives') hundreds of xenophobic expressions... Nice try. We know who's party ideology best "fits" the intolerant lifestyle. Intolerance is a 90% Conservative thing (follow link for full study on this fact) ... more accurately, moderates who are accepting of change and differences tend not to be xenophobic, while extremes (of either end of the spectrum - left or right) tend to use xenophobia and fear to divide populations. Cosmopolitans from Western Liberal Democracies tend to be the most tolerant and positive/progressive bunch anywhere... Conservatives tend to "diverge", "bunkerize", and generally fear, mistrust, and avoid new peoples, and new ideas.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Michael Ignatieff called him "Nixonion". The label fits. We have not ever seen a government so publicly "fudging" and/or breaking rules, election regulations, and just general ways of doing things.

The tape recordings Harper speaks of are particularly troubling. Remember, this is the same Harper government which publicly admitted to having tape recordings of NDP meetings.

Remember the Gurmant Grewal tapes? Was that also driven by Harper?

How about the Zitaruk tape (Chuck Cadman case), and the Conservatives' repeated attempts to show something that wasn't there? Of course Harper was smack in the middle of that little controversy and potentially illegal act as well.

Why is it, that it seems the guilt in these matters goes all the way up to Harper's top advisers, his PMO, and his cabinet, yet the obvious link to Harper isn't "mediaed up"?

Now, in Parliament, Harper (perhaps blowing a gasket - as he is known to do behind closed doors often) is admitting that he spends his days listening to tape recordings of Michael Ignatieff. How very mature. How fitting a Prime Minister who pretends to care about Canadians, and our economy.

Richard Nixon's ghost lives in Harper? Seems likely at this point.

This "Prime Minister" seems to be around recordings all the time. Nasty tape recordings meant to entrap, to distort the truth, to fabricate "truthiness". He is feared by everyone in his party. He lets Cabinet Ministers, senior aides, and PMO staff routinely take the "fall" for his misdeeds and failures. His "government" revolves around him. A misguided "cult of personality". He is mean-minded, vindictive, and angry. His ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING seems to be to play partisan games.

Instead of growing and fostering new tech and new alternative fuels, Harper's response is to sell Canada's nuclear agency. No wonder he's let it rot under his watch. The Harper strategy has always been to DESTROY GOVERNMENT FROM WITHIN. Anything he doesn't like about government will go. AECL will be sold, but first the Harper Conservatives let it fall apart. Let it become a public joke. That, he knew, would create enough public confusion and doubt that many Canadians would end up supporting the sale.

The same process is going on in Agriculture, where some of Canada's proudest institutions (like the Wheat Board) are being systematically dismantled by Harper and his friends - while their business is slowly falling into the hands of the corporate giants (like Cargill, UGG, etc.).

In Immigration and Multiculturalism, the department is being turned upside down. Funding has been cut to key areas, and people in countries like India and other South Asian, African, and South American nations are finding it harder to apply for immigration or speak to an official. The Conservatives have closed down one consulate in India (in Chandigarh), which was a source of Punjabi immigration to Canada (we all know that Punjabis are Kenney's and Harper's sworn enemies - Kenney even called Sikhs "hot-headed").

In Natural Resources, Harper's answer to forestry was to give the US billions in a failed "settlement" of a dispute which has once again reared it's head.

Foreign Affairs has seen the appointment of one joke after another to the Minister's role. Canada has become a laughing stock in foreign circles under Harper, after being one the most respected and favored nations under Chretien and Martin. Canada - under Harper - quickly jumped on the global "pariah" bandwagon with G. W. Bush. Canada under Harper become the biggest defender of Bushes' anti-Environment, anti-Peace, anti-Europe stand.

It was Harper's PMO which attempted to scuttle the Presidency of Barack Obama, then acted like nothing had happened.

Indian and Northern Affairs has ceased to exist as a department. Mr. Harper went back on the Canadian Government's word with the First Nations, by cancelling the Kelowna Accord. Harper's bogus line about "standing up for Canada's North" meant nothing, as existing programs have been cut, jobs disappeared, and we have yet to see anything but Harper bluster and hot air regarding any Northern development (beyond Northern Alberta oil).

National Defence was supposed to be the "golden child" of all departments under a Conservative regime. Instead, Harper has degenerated the Armed Forces into a body without a cause, by providing no clear direction on progress in Afghanistan. A former lobbyist Minister succeeded in buying newer equipment for the troops, but we can clearly see that the contract went to "old friends" of the Conservatives. The final "sacrelig" committed by Harper on the Defence file was publicly (to the world) saying Afghanistan was an "unwinnable" war. This single statement was the most demoralizing thing ANY Prime Minister could ever do to the troops. So much for "supporting our troops".

The Environment hasn't been spared. Harper is a climate change denier through and through. He is owned by Alberta Big Oil and Media interests, and his mere lip-service to Canada's energy and environmental future has been abyssmal. He regressed on any action the Liberal governments before him may have taken. He canceled Liberal programs, simply to rename some of them under new Conservative names, while cutting several permanently.

Finance. Harper have given us Jim "I don't know anything about the file" Flaherty, the biggest failure in the Finance file in Canadian history. To destroy the finances of the country he played the typical Reaganomics tune: tax cuts for the rich; and watched the economy go into free-fall during a recession for which we had an existing $13-$15 Billion contingency fund (thank you Mr. Goodale). The Conservative "way" has NEVER worked in Canada for budgeting - at least not over the past 100 years or so.

While he's worked hard to destroy Canada's government and institutions from the inside, the most frightening things about Stephen "the Under-achiever" Harper are his personal views and his angry conservative personality. He believes in the most petty version of politics. He has shown that scrupples mean nothing. He has spat on the memories of great PMs of the past, such as MacDonald, Laurier, MacKenzie King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau. He has become a single-minded "me-me-me machine" on a tear at tax-payer's expense. He has used tax payer funds to advertise for his own political purposes, and used the most "loose" interpretations of Canada's election laws (still up for review in court - likely illegal). He has secured more power in the PMO than any 5 PMs before him combined. He uses well-stocked party coffers - bouyed by the religious and looney right - to run slick PR campaigns to deceive voters who wouldn't know better.

Harper's people have said "he's changed", but Harper (even just after taking office in 06) has publicly claimed, "(Just before he was sworn in, back in January 2006, he told an interviewer), "I don't think my fundamental beliefs have changed in a decade." Still "Firewall Harper", the PM who thinks Canada is a Northern European Welfare state, who thinks Atlantic Canada has a culture of defeatism, who thinks immigrants in the West live in "ghettoes", and who thinks Alberta should have a firewall built around it. Remember - Harper's people went to Ottawa to change things for ALBERTA - and not for Canada. They have always referred to Canada as some land "foreign" to Alberta.

Stephen Harper IS the lowest common denominator in Canada. He is an embarrassment on the world stage, and the time has come to turf this pitiful PM before he does any more serious damage to this great land. He is more dangerous to Canada than Richard Nixon ever was to the USA.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sometimes you wonder if angry, staunchly ideological, and generally stupid people will ever "get it"... Then, out of the blue (or perhaps, "out of the blue sweater") their "lead idiot" finally seems to see the light (or perhaps just a glimmer of a ray of light)...

After using their conservative/Conservative/Reform-a-tory (name I coined, by the way, back when the Alliance was "born") ideology to cut, cut, cut taxes (and services, and important programs), it may have finally dawned on the "lead idiot" that tax cuts are NOT a remedy to all the world's problems. That tax cuts reduce the governments ability to help it's citizens. That tax cuts reduce essential services. That taxes pay for schools, highways, bridges, hospitals, etc., etc., etc.

Having thoroughly eroded the economic fabric of Canada, Harper may be ready to step back now... and let the Liberals fix the country. How noble of him.

So... today, Harper tells Canada he intends to raise taxes and admits that the only way (for him) out of the huge deficit he's created, is taxes. Of course Canadians will hue and cry because we were told there was "no structural deficit", then, "this is not a recession", or "this is a good time to invest in stock", etc. Canadians will think about the AGE-OLD MYTH THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE FISCALLY PRUDENT (all the evidence in Canada says "no" - going back through all the years of Confederation), and think, "boy, these Conservatives have really let us down with their over-spending and tax cuts". Canadians will then turn to the party which has always fixed Canada when our economy needed "fixin'".

This may be Harper's wish. He has probably now "seen how it really works". It's pretty easy for a back-room Tory/Reform hack (or grassroots thereof) to stand on their pulpit in rural Alberta/Sask and whine and cry about "Quebec", "the bureaucracy", "the aboriginals", "immigrants", "Ottawa pig-trough", "special interests", "ivory tower intellectuals", or "Eastern Elitists". Once they actually tried to run the country themselves, they quickly realized that they can't govern without addressing the needs and concerns of ALL CANADIANS. They realized that they can't just write off all of Eastern Canada (or even Quebec and the Atlantic), minorities (the so-called "special interest" they often code-word about), or any other vital part of the country.

They "realized" many of these things, but their hateful, angry, intolerant nature has prevented them from actually DOING anything about it. They would rather not... And so, it will be left up to the Liberal Party, to wrest government from the hands of the corrupt, morally (and financially) bankrupt Conservatives, and right the progress of the good ship Canada.

Yes, SOMEONE will have to rehabilitate the economy, and work on refilling the (empty) coffers of the government - so we can take care of all the jobless Canadians. SOMEONE will need to fix EI. SOMEONE will need to show that the government is there for the advancement of the people and the nation - and not just a "branch office" of the nouveau riche, and certain corporate and media forces.

It IS sad that so many Canadians were hoodwinked into the Harper experiment.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Love the new look logo and new LPoC site... The solo "L" with the maple leaf across it (bottom of the page) creates a nice "short form" logo to use on areas where the full name looks too small, or won't fit...

Great job by the decision-makers that be...

... It's also a lot "redder" than the previous iteration. The "Liberal" text also reminds me of the old Chretien/Martin days font. It's a classic, and it's only just come out...

This "Goodale Update" provides some insight into a potential "Liberals Strike Back" theme:

(Another very astute observation by Ralph)

MR. HARPER: BEHAVING LIKE A LOSER

Weak. Childish. Desperate.

These are words many people are using to describe Stephen Harper’s latest television attack-ads to smear Michael Ignatieff

The Conservatives are investing millions of dollars in this nasty form of character assassination. A political party only resorts to such junk-yard dog tactics if they know they’re losing. This advertising is a glaring admission of Conservative failure.

It’s also insulting to a lot of Canadians.

Never mind Mr. Ignatieff. He’s strong. He’ll take care of himself. In the next election, he will leave Stephen Harper in the dust.

But what about all the new immigrants who have recently come here to make Canada their home? Mr. Harper’s attack-ads effectively label newcomers as second-class citizens – they’ll never be “real” Canadians, according to the Conservatives.

What about Canadians who have worked outside this country and made themselves successful internationally?

The Harper attack-ads say people like these are “less Canadian” because they have lived and worked for a while beyond our borders. Their citizenship is diminished, according to the Conservatives.

Do we really want a government with such destructive, mean-spirited attitudes?

It’s amazing how fast the Harper propaganda machine was able to crank out its vicious negative advertising.

There are 350,000 unemployed victims of the current Conservative recession in Canada who wish this government could act as fast on effective stimulus measures to create new jobs in this country and make Employment Insurance benefits accessible to all those who have paid for them.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Remember the border erasure ads from the "Free Trade Election"? Remember the effect they had on it? There may just be another "border issue" that plays it's hand in the Federal election that is coming up any month now...

The misplaced fear in the US about the border with Canada has played it's course, with both Republicans and Democrats pretending they're the "toughest" on security, by advocating a tougher border, and the use of passports at crossings (when entering Canada). The schoolyard positioning is typical of the paranoia, fear, misunderstanding, and sheer idiocy that comes with "public defense issues" - be they terrorism, crime, etc. Rather than sober, intelligent discussion, the paranoia and fear (often generated, fostered and fomented by the media and politicians) take over, and suddenly the "hard stance" is the ONLY way to go...

Reading Cathie From Canada's blog made us think about this issue a little in depth. The article she refers to (from the Montreal Gazette) has columnist Josh Freed musing about the Obama administration's "carrying on" of the old Bushist themes of "weak border with Canada", etc.

What DID Canada ever do to Mr. Obama? There is another underlying issue which may be paving the path for the Obama admin's position on the matter. The issue may be more about what Harper DID (how he deliberately tried to scuttle Obama's bid for the White House), and less about what "Canada did". Just sayin'... It's pretty easy to let the matter be decided by the old administration's existing policy, then - with great fanfare - warm to the new Canadian adminstration (coming soon to a H of C near you).

Let this issue fester with Canadians for a while... like, let's see... maybe through the summer tourism season - when Canadians line up at the border to take their families South. Hmmm... It WILL be a major issue. Just in time for the Canadian election.

Sometimes, it's the simple things, like border crossing, that can drive an election. You pack a family of six in a minivan from Napean, and turn them back from the border in Windsor, and watch how blood starts to boil faster than the temperature outside. Watch wait times tick off more than a few travellers (as border guards adjust to the new measures).

What next? How about the "white night" (errr... maybe "red night") coming charging in, with the ability to forge better relations with the Obama regime. Maybe someone who has good relations with top Obama policy folks? Perhaps someone who attended Obama's alma mater?

Bottom line: The passport issue could play very well for Mr. Ignatieff, and his relationship with Canadian voters this summer...

Prime Minister Harper is starving CBC, letting it suffer a slow death. At the same time, Harper and his Ministers are advancing the sheer fantasy that the CBC enjoys record high funding levels and are promising more.

Those promises turned out to be empty when the government tabled in Parliament its new spending plan (they call it Supplementary Estimates) last week with not an extra dime for CBC! This follows recent news that the CBC budget will be reviewed to identify spending cuts of up to $56 million next year.

The good news is that Harper's disdainful treatment of the CBC flies in the face of public opinion.

As the research report we commissioned from POLLARA shows, the vast majority of Canadian voters hold the CBC in high regard. Voters see the CBC as our primary custodian of Canadian culture and identity and have a high level of trust and confidence in the CBC to carry this national torch. Most significantly, Canadians think the CBC is underfunded.

We know from past experience that it is extremely difficult to attract media attention to research about the CBC. Private broadcasters do not want to give attention to a rival. And the CBC does not want to appear self-serving in its reporting. But with your help, we can make sure your MP becomes fully aware of public opinion.

Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of concerned Canadians have sent messages, signed petitions, and joined groups to protest the Harper government's mission to hobble our CBC. Help us make it impossible for the government to ignore public opinion!

P.S. The House of Commons is not sitting this week so your MP will be at home in your riding. This means that now is the perfect time to send a message. As a local constituent, your message carries extra weight with your MP. I hope you will join me and thousands of others who are terribly upset about the state of our CBC. To keep up the pressure, please send your message now!

Thursday, May 21, 2009

So the Conservatives don't think you should be PM if you've lived outside of the country. This certainly explains their refusal to place any South Asians in their main Cabinet... or their unceremonious dumping of Raheem Jaffer. Of course it doesn't explain people like Toews or Ms. Ablonzcy. Perhaps they can "pass as Canadians" better? Perhaps another favorite Conservative fault is at play here as well (xenophobia).

Every time I've lived abroad (and I have), I've been the most patriotic flag waver anyone could imagine. Of course I also adopt the local culture/nation a little bit, and try to consider myself "one of them" - at least for the time I'm there. It's what we expect anyone staying in Canada to do - adapt to our "culture" somewhat..., so why shouldn't our citizens living abroad do the same? "When in Rome, do as the Romans" and all that good stuff.

There are thousands of Americans residing in Canada - who maintain their American citizenship, but choose to live here - even prefer it. Are they any less American? They still fly their flags on the 4th of July. They still visit their family back home.

When Canadians go abroad, we bring our thoughts and culture and ideas to the foreign lands we grace with our presence. When Michael Ignatieff went abroad, he undoubtedly took along the egalitarian human rights ideas that are so Canadian. Many of those ideas were from his experience with Mr. Trudeau, and living in that almost utopian Canada of the early 70s.

The Conservative "drive-by smear" campaign is disgusting, and insulting to New Canadians, or Canadians who choose to live/work abroad for numerous employment and professional reasons. If a Canadian youngster is a great football player or basketball player (Steve Nash of Maple Ridge BC ring a bell?), should they not pursue their dreams of playing at the top levels of their game in the USA? Russian, German, Czech, and Swedish hockey players regularly adopt Canada as their home. They maintain their citizenship and play for their home national teams, but they become integral parts of the local community in Toronto, or Calgary, or Edmonton, or Vancouver, or Montreal, adapting to the language and customs, placing their hand against their heart and singing along to "Oh Canada", and for all intents and purposes, "becoming Canadian".

I suppose Canadians who have a chance to study or teach at Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, or Princeton, shouldn't go? Or, if they do "go", they shouldn't bother coming back? We might as well tell all those young Canadians who go to foreign Med Schools (because of the pathetically small numbers admitted here) that they should just go to the US? Yeah, that's the ticket - let's encourage the brain drain!

Canada is much better for Mr. Ignatieff being here. Canadians are saying it with their opinion of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives, and of Michael himself. The tone MI took upon becoming leader (even interim) galvanized Canadians. I daresay Canadians prefer the politics of "vision", and constructive growth, a politics of fiscal competence, over what Harper and his Mike Harris Conservatives have to offer.

Personally, I - and many like me - feel slighted by this Conservative government. We always knew and observed their lack of caring for what they term "outsiders". One only has to look at a string of the largest number of anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-First Nations, and anti-foreigner comments in Canadian history, uttered by these stalwarts of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party. Yes, die-hard Reformers will point to the odd stupid comment made by a Liberal MP (usually the "instant Liberal, former Conservative" MPs who jumped on the Martin bandwagon about 5 yrs ago), but these tiny examples were never as vehemently offensive as anything uttered by Reformers.

What the Conservatives are telling me, and many like me, is, if you're "different", or if you've lived abroad, or started out abroad, then you're not as Canadian as the rest of us. A lot of us lived and studied abroad, and I for one refuse to take this latest Conservative hate mongering sitting down.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

So CTV - owner of (with Bell-Globe Media) one of the largest satellite networks in Canada, would like to "stop the evil cable and satellite providers"? Hmmm...

Just WHAT would CTV gain? They already charge for commercial airtime. Maybe advertisers are not "biting"? While I do agree that cable providers should pay to use CTV, CBC, Global, etc., signals, the public should realize that this crusade against "cable/satellite tyranny" is contrived. Bell/CTV-Globe Media is part of the same conglomerate that owns the biggest "cable/sat" provider in Canada.

There must be some magic in the numbers. Maybe this is a ploy by the cable/sat providers to earn more? Looking closely, you'll note that CTV gets paid for commercial airtime. If they charge Bell more, then they make the extra that Bell pays them, BUT they also gain the extra mark-up that Bell will invariably charge it's customers for the "extra costs".

Don't you just love these huge, heartless media conglomerates? Time we legistlate the break-up of all these companies, and the selling off of the assets - piecemeal. THAT will bring REAL local focus back to media: Imagine the local papers, local TV and radio stations, that would be "freed" from their corporate overlords!

Breaking up the big media conglomerates would help local economies and local upstarts (and smaller businesses), but it would also help the big media moguls. Right now they are dying. No-one wants to buy advertising in the slow economy - particularly print ads. Once the print, radio and TV get separated, they will flourish alone. Strict laws to prevent ANY monopoly situation (like the CanWest Papers), and prevention of media cross-ownership. In the interest of progress, leave the internet wide open, so there is a guarantee that multiple sources will provide it in markets.

It's funny what you find, when you look at any situation with a bit of a magnifying glass...

We don't even have to remind you that Reform-a-Tories are hypocrites... Harper's own government advocates working abroad (most foreign service members spend 20, 30, even 40 years abroad), yet he attacks Ignatieff for doing the same? They're even running advertising for it! Here's a listing below:

Don Cherry - Spent most of his adult life in the US (more than 30 years), yet this doesn't stop Reformers/Cons from touting him as a "big name" possible (they hope) candidate...

General Rick Hillier - Care to guess how many years HE spent away from Canada? Try from around the 70s to just about NOW? He's the new Conservative leadership "golden boy"... Some Reform friends in Calgary recently contacted me about "drafting" him...

William Shatner - Yup... often hear his name in jest... but you know...

John Candy - Back when he was still alive, his name was frequently mentioned as a potential candidate for an MP position.

Stephen Harper - While his body was in Canada, his mind and his heart - for most of the past 40 years - has been in the USA...

Diane Ablonczy - Name had been mentioned for taking a run at the Reform/Alliance/Con leadership.

Conrad Black - Most Conservatives would drop their pants for him in an instant - and would LOVE to let him take a run at their leadership (well, maybe not now that he's in jail - then again, who knows?). Of course "His Lordshit" did renounce his citizenship so he could become a "Lord"... Makes us wonder... will Harper be doing the same thing (renouncing his citizenship to go on a US speaking tour sponsored by Fox - not necessarily going to jail)...?

What's interesting is, while Michael Ignatieff may have spent a lot of years getting to know the world around him (while Harper stewed in the single voice "Smallville atmosphere" of Calgary), it was other Canadians who know and LOVE this country who brought him back and convinced him to run (NOT Mr. Ignatieff's own "ego" as some are trying to say). Most of us know that story.

Now look at Harper's biggest supporters, financiers, and influencers: Big Oil (mostly based in Texas, USA), Right Wing media (NewsCorp - based in Australia), etc. Just WHO does Harper owe his leadership, and his very existence as PM to? He refuses to reveal his donors. He is OWNED by foreign (mostly US/right wing) interests.

Friday, May 15, 2009

I recall when Mr. Chretien, and Mr. Martin were gearing up for their first election victories. It may be too early to say, but the feeling I got at the Convention in Vancouver, from the general public around Vancouver, and (not that this is a good thing for democracy) the media (yes, the media has seemed to have changed its mind about Harper), is one of pending victory. It's the same feeling one got in 92/93 leading up to the big Chretien win. It's feeling one had attending Paul Martin press conferences and events leading up to his leadership...

It may have begun with the sleazy attacks on Mr. Dion - for which many in the media felt like "tools" to put it nicely (and accurately). It may have begun with the Conservative delay on any sort of action on the recession. Maybe it was the Conservative/Harper denials of anything wrong with the economy when the most respected economists and economic journals in the world (including the Economist) were saying otherwise. Perhaps it was the continued childish antics of the Conservatives - their lack of any talent behind the perceived "talent" of Harper, their resort to name-calling, personal attacks, muck-raking, and sleaze, whenever they are in trouble...

It more likely has to do with the tremendous intelligence, talent, worldly experience, diplomacy, and genuine "niceness" of Michael Ignatieff. Spend some time with him. He's a really nice, likable guy - but DON'T take the "nice" guy thing to extremes. A man with Ignatieff's drive, determination, and intellect won't suffer fools (Harper et al), and won't sit idly while the Conservatives continue to shovel their "slime". His response will, of course, be that of a mature person - a true diplomat and gentleman.

Working with Michael (on his leadership campaign) in Alberta, and in BC, hosting him at a Richmond house party, and having the pleasure of conversation with this intellectual giant and his equally intelligent and witty wife, it is apparent how the media are beginning to fall in love with him. He commands attention in a room, doesn't give "pat" answers, and THINKS about questions concerned voters ask.

Mr. Ignatieff is not a "secretive" man. There are no "hidden agendas", like there are with the megalomaniacal Harper (if he were to - heaven forbid - somehow get a majority). His whole life is an open book - quite literally. Want to know about his views on human rights? Read one of his books - or get a transcript of one of his Harvard lectures. Want to know how much he loves Canada? Read his books. Want to know how he feels or thinks about "hyper-nationalism"? Read "Blood and Belonging".

How does this compare with our current "PM"? Harper has never written a book - and (unless he gets a shadow writer) will never finish the "hockey book" he promised years ago... Harper sermonized for years about his hatred for Quebec, his love of the Republican NeoConservative Americans, his disdain for Atlantic Canada, his love of tax cuts at the expense of social programs, his hatred of the civil service, his public doubting of climate change, and his "discomfort" around minorities (be they women, First Nations, new Canadians, etc.).

Harper is "provincial", cheap, boorish, deceitful, the antithesis of "learned", petty (VERY petty), full of himself, and angry. Harper's world begins and ends in Western Canada - with the odd visit to the US. He is decidedly "untravelled", "non-worldly", and has some sort of belief that the world revolves around the strange hallucinogenic teachings of the American Neo-Con/religious right movement.

Canada's media - even the "friends of the right" at the Post/Sun chains - have begun to realize the true stature of Harper, when measured against a far greater person: Michael Ignatieff. Daily, Mr. Ignatieff shows us what true diplomacy is. Daily he reminds us of what a PM should look or act like...

The frat boys over at Con-Central have launched their latest attack ads... Cute.

We need to assess the "threat" before we respond.

To quote Harpo, the lead Reform-a-Tory: "Make no mistake", attack ads do appeal to at least the least informed and the lowest common denominator in the populace.

Do we roll around in the muck with the Reform-a-tories? Do we take the proverbial "high road"? Matching them, stroke for stroke, would equate to being "the same as them" to less informed voters. Doing nothing risks their messaging getting some traction after months of repetition on radio and TV (I think radio is more effective for what it's worth - and what it costs).

Expect the Cons to appeal to the people they "like" over the next few months. Ads will mostly be on "sports radio", "talk radio", and TV sports programs.

How should we respond? We need to combine the ad types. My suggestion: Run an ad that is a montage of all the hateful and negative things Harper has said (including his anti-Canadian messages). Then focus on the positive Liberal message in all the rest of the ads. Get out the famous Canadians who've gone abroad, to support Michael, and show their love for Canada.

Don't have to start right away. Give it a bit of time... Not too long.

I trust that our team of strategists are ready for this, and it won't be long before we do indeed strike back. In the meantime, lets enjoy the media skewering the Conservatives on their latest "masterpieces"...

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

I'm not talking about busted hospitality suites from the Vancouver Convention either...

Been hearing from a few Liberals friends that they don't think the BC Liberals are a "true liberal" party. The criticism ranges from actual differences to the results of personal slights, to full-on bitterness regarding past events.

To make a long story short, some tumultuous events on the political front - several years ago - led to the dissolution of the Conservative Social Credit Party. Many lost Socreds searched for a new home. Some (of the extremely angry Reform Party types) founded the BC Reform Party, and ended up in the BC Conservative Party (yes, there is one). The rest of the more progressively conservative opportunists scurried over to the Liberal juggernaut (bringing some of their further right friends with them). Many in the Liberal Party (BC) welcomed these visitors (and believe me, they are most likely visitors - if/when the LP-BC takes a nose-dive and a more conservative movement arises, these "PCs" will jump ship again). Many others did not. Some chose to bow out of politics rather than share a stage with the near right - and people they had been fighting with, tooth and nail, for years. Others chose to silently (or not-so-silently) support the NDP.

In our support for this Liberal Party (BC) we have often been questioned on our stand. Why BC Liberal? Well, for one, this party is still THE Liberal Party of BC. While the big umbrella may have opened up a little wider to take in a few more folks, it certainly didn't become "Reform-light" (or you would never have seen things like the "carbon tax"). Certainly some of the more fiscally conservative ideas have come to the forefront - but don't think those ideas don't exist in a Liberal Party. My own definition of Liberal (L) - more accurately "centrist" - is one who is fiscally responsible, while still being socially progressive and aware.

My own "outsiders view" of the BC Liberals (I've been watching BC politics from Sask. and AB.) has been one untainted by local events. Being more objective, one can see that there is room under the big tent. Sure, there are some federal Conservatives involved in the BC Liberal Party - mostly in Rural areas, but joining a group of Liberals (like last night's victory party) quickly shows one that there are life-long "red Liberals" in the party, and even some former NDPers. Did I mention politics is "strange" out here? Some of the Reformers were not with that (Reform) party for it's policies, but rather for a single issue (perhaps taxes), or were simply opportunists, or supporting friend/family member, etc. Now - out of political "need" - they find themselves within the Liberal Party. After 1993, many Federal PCs helped Liberals win seats. Many more who joined the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have also stepped over to the big Liberal Tent (Belinda Stronach, Keith Martin, Scott Brison, etc.). This is how political coalitions are made. This is how parties grow, and take on new ideas.

An objective view would characterize the BC Liberals as a broad "coalition", with room for more. Many will disagree with that view. I challenge them to join up and change the party from within - IF you really see a big difference. If you're a Liberal, then you're not an NDPer, you're not a Reformer, or a Green. You're a Liberal. A true "party person" will not turn away, but stand and fight for the principles they believe in...

We worked for, and voted for the BC Liberals this past election, and will continue to do so - bringing to the table centrist ideas worth discussing in a Liberal forum...

Stephen Harper is a great advocate for accountability – for everybody but himself!

He used to give long speeches on the topic. He made a big deal of his so-called “Federal Accountability Act”, claiming it as his most important accomplishment.

But Mr. Harper doesn’t walk the talk.

In reality, his government is the most secretive in history. More unaccountable power is now concentrated in his hands than ever before.

To protect the public interest, Parliament has established a number of “watchdog” institutions over the years to act as a check on unbridled prime ministerial power. Stephen Harper has been in fights with all of them.

For example, the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for ensuring fair and honest elections in Canada. The Conservatives didn’t like the previous incumbent in that post (a 30-year veteran public servant), so they replaced him, and now they’re in court attacking the new guy.

The Access to Information Commissioner says this government delays, manipulates and denies answers to questions which the public has every right to know.

To deflect attention from his own mismanagement, Mr. Harper concocted a political showdown with the President of Canada’s Nuclear Safety Commission, which even his department of Natural Resources described as improper.

When the new Parliamentary Budget Officer told the Conservatives that their financial projections were wrong, Mr. Harper immediately chopped his budget – to cripple his operation and shut him up.

But probably the most dangerous abuse of power is about food safety.

Since the listeriosis tragedy last summer, which claimed more than 20 lives – while the Conservative Agriculture Minister cracked jokes – dozens of serious questions about Canada’s food inspection system have gone unanswered.

Why will Mr. Harper not allow a full, independent public inquiry into what went so terribly wrong? What is he trying to hide?

(Edit: Add to this his "non-declaration" of gifts received from various sources - we have more gifts on record/film)

Friday, May 08, 2009

Can't wait to see the Conservative spin-doctor talking points on this one... PMO/Kenney's office better work hard to find any kind of real evidence to support their allegations...

This post from BCer in TO really opened my eyes. It seems that Ms. Dhalla is the victim of a whack of lies and a deliberate attempt to defame her. No wonder no Conservative MP dares utter these lies outside of Parliament. They simply needed an "anti-Liberal angle" to go with the release of a recent report on foreign care workers... Shame.

As the first Liberal bloggers stepping up to defend her right to due process, we would like to repeat BCer's post/link. This is REAL EVIDENCE contrary to simple accusatory remarks from the disgruntled former employees of Neil Dhalla (NOT Ruby Dhalla, by the way)...

Thursday, May 07, 2009

While the "economy burns", hyperpartisan Conservatives would rather attack a Liberal MP over her family's (not her own) live-in caregivers. Never mind the fact that Ms. Dhalla spent very little time in this extended family household, or that the caregivers were hired by someone else in her family, were not to care for her, and were never "supervised" by her...

This is the typical "stink" of the Conservative slime machine. They have a history of drive-by smears. False allegations, etc. Remember the false charges against Mr. Goodale? Remember the attacks on Navdeep Bains? The Cons have their "favorite target MPs". Usually suburban MPs in hotly contested areas, or areas where they have some key "friends" working...

The market dipped today, Prime Minister "Good Opportunity To Buy Stock" is in hiding in Europe (running from the hammering he's taking in the polls over his lack of anything resembling responsible government), and this is when the Con-Caucus get's all hyper and partisan... It's a recurring them. Any time the Reform-a-Tory in Chief leaves town, the kids get to play (and speak). The Dhalla gambit is one that came from 2nd in Command (Kenney) who is working hard to get his buddy elected in Dhalla's riding (and has been for some time).

So, is this so-called "scandal" involving the family of a Liberal MP really more important than Canadians losing their jobs?

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

This, of course, is an affront to everything the Conservative government stands for (or better said - stands against). The Connies hate science, scientists, intellectuals, and research and development.

If the Conservatives continue to have their way with research funding in Canada, great days like this may be few and far between...

Jason Kenney carries on his crusade against "multi-culturalism", and today the Cons - with their new friends, the NDP (or should we say "socialist coalition partners"?) - decide they'll accuse another visible minority MP from a suburban riding (remember the Navdeep Bains attacks - which turned out to be a bunch of Conservative lies?), of actions which haven't even been evidenced in any sort of a hearing yet.

In the Dhalla situation, I will wait to see what transpires in a judicial hearing or - more likely - labor board tribunal. It was very good of Ms. Dhalla to step down from role as a critic (as these allegations are quite serious). As Liberals, we don't have to fight such things "tooth n' nail" - we have much more talent than the Conservatives, and the post will quite easily be filled. If Ms. Dhalla, or any other politician is found to have contravened regulations in such a manner, then - of course, they need to pay the fines/levies/back salaries, etc., required.

One KEY FACT to note: Ruby lives within an extended family - something quite commonplace among South Asians and new Canadians in general. She has quite clearly stated she had no role in the hiring, supervision, etc., of these folks. I believe that. In a South Asian home, the eldest male or female (usually male) is the head of household. They householder would be the one paying the bills, supervising, and spending most of their day with the servants. This is the same way it works in India. Ruby is probably innocent of anything here, but due to her public persona, is being vilified. Ruby also spends very little time at home - next to none - and probably hardly ever saw these employees "of the family"...

Without a proper understanding of extended family households in the South Asian community, one cannot claim any wrongdoing had anything to do with Ruby - whatsoever. Disgruntled ex-employees often claim things. They often conspire to attack their former employer, or perceived employer. This all is left to be proven (or disproven)... I live in an extended household, and there are literally thousands of financial and social transactions carried on by my family members (who are all active in various business interests, cultural foundations, clubs, etc.). It would be ridiculous for me to bear any responsibility for the actions of someone ranging from a brother, sister, parent, or grandparent who just happen to reside at the same address...

We live in Surrey, BC. A city that racists like to claim is a crime-ridden ghetto. Couldn't be further from the truth. Surrey is the size of Vancouver (roughly, and we'll be calling the region Metro Surrey in about 10 years), and has a lower crime rate than: Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Langley, and Abbottsford in the Lower Mainland (while being the most diverse city of that bunch). Surrey also has lower crime than Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg (all from the "peaceful and quiet" prairies). Surrey and Richmond BC BOTH score better on crime than all these other cities... and BOTH are more diverse. Seems to say the opposite of what Kenney is trying to say to voters.

Living in one of the single few "ethnic enclaves" of any sort (and we resent that description, because Surrey is VERY diverse - and it has the kind of diversity all of Canada should have), we cannot say straight-faced that this is a "ghetto" that creates more crime and/or gangs. If it were, we wouldn't be seeing so many residents of North Vancouver moving here to escape the mud slides (and be more centrally located). The high end neighborhoods of Morgan Creek, South Surrey, Crescent Beach (yes - ocean front homes), Panorama Ridge, Tynehead, Fleetwood, and Fraser Heights ALL have many hundreds of homes in the $1 Million to $3-4 Million range. Surrey is a city of parks and beauty, with some of the best nature trails, urban forests, salmon habitats, bird sanctuaries, "urban farms", wineries, golf courses (Northview, for one), anywhere.

Mr. Kenney's views on this are simply bigoted, biased, and wrong, and show absolutely no sensitivity of the type required for a cabinet minister in the role he is in...

For a Cabinet Minister in the Canadian Parliament to be making such statements is APPALING. He is simply appealing to the lowest common denominator - the slack-jaw vote that forms the hard-right base of the Reform movement. What are his definitions of "right policies" and "wrong policies"? Doesn't look like he's ever studied urban sociology.

We've commented over the years on Kenney's anger/hatreds and biases, but when we came across this statement, it simply reinforced everything we've ever thought of him.

Jason Kenney should resign as the Minister of Multiculturalism and Immigration. He is a fifth columnist put in the role by Harper to pander to immigrant groups (without doing anything substantial to help them at all), while slowly killing the idea of multiculturalism from within...

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

I thought the BC-NDP might score a few cheap points by going against everything they stand for and opposing a carbon tax. Then they do this:

Just when you thought the NDP had run out of things to tax, they've found two more - death and beer.

Yes, these two bombshells rocked the NDP campaign today.

THE NDP DEATH TAX

Recently an NDP candidate surprised all participants at an all-candidates forum when he directly endorsed the introduction of a new tax on inheritance – sometimes called a “death tax” – if the NDP were elected.

Shockingly, the NDP not only want to increase taxes on you while you’re alive, but they also want to increase taxes on you after you’re gone.

THE NDP BEER TAX

Yesterday the NDP confirmed they will increase costs for private liquor retailers by $155-million over the next three years resulting in an average $3 increase in the price of a six-pack of beer – risking thousands of jobs in over 650 retail stores.

As British Columbians kick back with their friends and family and enjoy the Canucks' playoff run and the arrival of summer, the last thing they need to hear is that the NDP will jack up the price of beer and wine.

While people are worried about their jobs during the global economic downturn, the NDP is trying to find new ways to tax you.

A few days ago, for example, when the Chrysler deal brokered by President Obama was trickling into the public domain, Liberals asked a number of questions in Parliament to get the exact details on the Canadian side of the border. Nothing provocative or rude. Just a straight-forward request for the facts.

But the Conservative reply was a wild tirade of personal abuse and bitter invective.

No information for worried Chrysler workers in Windsor or local auto dealers in communities across Canada (including Saskatchewan). Just childish Conservative accusations about fictitious tax increases that have no basis in reality.

It’s quite pathetic to see a government reduced to such a sorry state – peddling desperate propaganda, apparently believing that if they tell a big enough falsehood loud enough and long enough, some people just might believe it.

Treating Canadians with such contempt is a big Conservative mistake. Because of their excessive partisanship, Mr. Harper and his government are lurching from one bad poll to the next. Their standing with a growing majority of Canadians is steadily dropping.

By contrast, Michael Ignatieff’s rejuvenated Liberals are moving up!

Mr. Ignatieff’s message is one of inclusion, hope and confidence. With every passing day, he’s convincing more and more Canadians that we can build a better country – if we come together (west and east, rural and urban) to tackle ambitious goals, to reach for excellence, and not to settle for mediocrity.

Most people are ready for such a refreshing opportunity to leave behind the weary politics of division and abuse.

Last November, our American neighbours closed the book on George Bush’s sorry era of nasty behaviour. Canadians are increasingly anxious to do the same here.